Photo Mode, A New Form of Artwork?

[Shagger]

I've just seen a very interesting article from BBC Culture exploring the idea of photo modes in video games being used as a tool to create artwork. Not specifically a game's aesthetic design itself, but the use of Photo Mode to create works of art individually.

 

I've said it before and, even though I'm sure it's not a popular opinion, I'll still stand by the idea that a video game cannot be a work of art itself. I say that because for something to be art it has to have no purpose other than itself, no function. A video game has a function. It's not just entertainment, it's a challenge. A test of reflexes, strategy, teamwork and so on. There's art to be found in a game's make up with writing, design art etc, but the game itself is not a form of art.

 

However, I can totally get behind this notion of a game's photo made being a legitimate tool to create works of art. It makes sense to me in the same way art photography does and I feel it has a lot of potential. I think the infamously pretentious art world isn't ready to start displaying gaming screenshots in galleries and you just know (at least some) game companies will make it difficult for anyone who tries by means of copyright law (although I would describe a screenshot as a transformative work). Still it's nice to see at least some consideration of the idea coming through and taken seriously.

 

What do you think?

Edited May 25, 2021 by Shagger

[Reality vs Adventure]

This is a really great topic and thanks for sharing that article!!! I don't even know where to begin, cause in my gaming experience, taking photos is a big part of it. Especially AC Odyssey, where I first experimented with its photo mode. That is a very beautiful game. The article made good points how some photographers may even prefer this method. One problem I see happening as Resident Evil has done is that the game developers will add copyright stamp on every pic taken.

I agree that we should respect the developers because they created the world, but the world is in a continuous real life imagined cycle with movement. And to capture something so specific in all that, to me should be respected as a photographic art. Very often I find myself setting up a shot the way I want it. It used to be a stop and click, stop and click. But with all the features coming out in the photo modes, now I use props and try to get the right reflection of the sun, and add leaves or butterflies like Ghost of Tsushima photo mode has. I wonder how that debate will play out on whether a copyright will be upheld or not. The lines get blurry even further if a photo was taken without much effort, just a random shot of the beach. Would that still be personal art, or the game's? I think if anything, the developers can get a cut off of any recognition or profit for using their photo tool, rather than from the scenery itself. I really don't know. 

I personally see video games itself as an art. Especially after playing the Layers of Fear series. Those games have changed the way I see video games now. Everything about it is art. And that game with especially its sequel would create even further controversy because each scene in the game is already a captured moment. It is already set up portraying an image it wants you to see and feel. It would be hard to create anything really specific in that game that isn't already there. But then again, games like that probably shouldn't offer a photo mode.  

Play your favorite game and do some photography, what's not to love? For me, my pics are a sort of journal in my adventure that I'll look back on sometime and remember the experiences playing those games. I have taken some pretty cool pics, but I'm a bit inspired to try and get some really amazing ones now. 

 

[Reality vs Adventure]

This is AC Origins I played tonight. This picture says a lot. You have an assassin in armor a foot away from a vulnerable flamingo. And it sits there in the water knowing it can spread its wings any moment. And to get this close I have never experienced in wildlife in any game. His hands are raised like it's gonna strangle it. The assassin is dangerous, but he is curious and so is the flamingo. When humans interact with wildlife. What happens next is up to the human. Since I'm controlling Bayek, I respect its life. I left in black and white because color is even more dramatic. You saw it here first in case someone wants to claim it. I took a hundred pictures in this moment. I love this stuff. They created it. I caught it. 

[Shagger]

I downloaded the images from my Facebook account and found a lot of photo mode images, mostly from Horizon Zero Dawn, but a couple from Uncharted 4 as well that I'd forgotten about. This is as good a place as any to share them, so feel free to comment on this gallery. I'm hosting if on Imgur to avoid flooding the forum with an absurd amount of images, but I'll post a couple of my favourites.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2021 by Shagger

[Reality vs Adventure]

The color palette in Horizon is a photographer's wet dream. How can they make such a beautiful game and not inspire us to want to be able to capture these moments? But I feel like an idiot because I didn't know HZD had a photo mode. Now I'm looking at the options in all my games to see which ones offer it. I've found RDR2 also has a photo mode which I never knew. 

But out of the games I've played, I think the photo mode in Ghost of Tsushima is the best so far. There are a ton of options in there. I think that's the direction gaming is moving toward and soon every game will have a way to personalize photos. 

[StaceyPowers]

On 5/24/2021 at 2:04 AM, Shagger said:

something to be art it has to have no purpose other than itself, no function

What are some examples of that?

I mean, if you create an art for no purpose but itself, doesn't that still make a statement about meaning and value, and challenge the way people think and feel about things? It seems almost impossible to me to entirely divorce purpose from an act, including creation or destruction.

[Shagger]

On 6/8/2021 at 8:01 PM, StaceyPowers said:

What are some examples of that?

I mean, if you create an art for no purpose but itself, doesn't that still make a statement about meaning and value, and challenge the way people think and feel about things? It seems almost impossible to me to entirely divorce purpose from an act, including creation or destruction.

 

The classic forums of artistic expression are probably the easiest examples to use to explain this with. A painting or a statue has no practical purpose, purely creative. There's just vain, opulent, arbitrary things that don't do anything to help anyone. Inanimate objects that only exist to be admired, and nothing more. As soon as something has a use, it becomes something that isn't art. It's now a tool, a device, something that has a purpose beyond it's own vanity. Yes artwork can be (and some might argue needs to be) provocative. Make you think, make you feel, but that's a reaction created only by the admirer, not the object. It's not telling you to feel that way nor convince you of anything. It may have the complete opposite effect on you that the artist intended, and nobody would be able to argue. So you see, a provocation isn't something the work of art in question actually does, that's something you created yourself. Anything you do, say or even feel after admiring a work of art is still something you do on your own. It's artwork itself is still not doing anything. It has no purpose, no function, outside of it's own vanity. That's what something needs to be to be art.

 

That's why I say a video game can't technically be a form of art because it's a challenge, a test of self. Thus, video games have purpose outside of thier own vanity. In that sense, I'd say they're more like a sport. Don't get me wrong though, just because something has a purpose and now can't be art, doesn't mean it can't be built, as least in part, with artistic merit and it can still be admired and be beautiful.

 

Take chess, for example. A game of chess is not an art form, it's a game that tests one's strategic thinking. It's design is built not through pure creativity, but on structure, a set of rules to govern the game. That's not art, that's built to a purpose based on rules, not artistic merit. However, does chess need art to exist? Is their artistic merit in it's design? Well, one look at these chess boards and the answer is obvious;

 

 

 

 

It terms of that design structure built off the rules and parameters of the game, all these chess boards are exactly the same. A game of chess is technically no different played on any of these boards, or even on a bog basic, plastic piece of shit like this.

 

 

So you see, just because chess is not art, does not diminish how import art is in it's make up. Whilst the game may be technically exactly same no matter what board you play on, the creative element can enhance the experience enormously.

 

Video games are no different. They're basic designs are structured on rules, not creativity, but the aesthetics are there, built of the creative imaginings of whoever it was that created them and can add to the experience enormously. Yes, the creative elements are more important in a video game when compared to a board game because the user interface is entirely dependant of visual design, but that's something that's built to a purpose as well as aesthetics, so it's not entirely a creative endeavour. Not to mention visual aesthetics aren't the only creative elements of a game either, there is also writing and music. So a video game is not art, but it is a test of self challenge that needs good art to reach it's full potential.

 

I hope that clears up any confusion over my point of view.

Edited December 16, 2022 by Shagger

[StaceyPowers]

3 minutes ago, Shagger said:

I hope that clears up any confusion over my point of view

So, basically you would say that video games are not art, but may contain elements of art?

"A painting or a statue has no practical purpose, purely creative."

I'm not sure I feel the same way. Theoretically, it exists to fill top-of-the-pyramid needs in Maslow terms. As these may contribute to the well-being of an organism, I would say that is quite practical (not to say the object may not have intrinsic value of its own).

"Make you think, make you feel, but's a reaction created only by the admirer, not the object."

I see what you mean, although I think I'd lean toward the theory that both are involved. Even a very abstract piece of art or something as ambiguous as an instrumental piece of music may invoke extremely similar responses in different admirers, suggesting that some aspects of design can reliably produce certain responses in a viewer or listener. Indeed, this may even occur if the artist is an AI, building a piece entirely without conscious intention.

[Shagger]

18 minutes ago, StaceyPowers said:

So, basically you would say that video games are not art, but may contain elements of art?

"A painting or a statue has no practical purpose, purely creative."

I'm not sure I feel the same way. Theoretically, it exists to fill top-of-the-pyramid needs in Maslow terms. As these may contribute to the well-being of an organism, I would say that is quite practical (not to say the object may not have intrinsic value of its own).

"Make you think, make you feel, but's a reaction created only by the admirer, not the object."

I see what you mean, although I think I'd lean toward the theory that both are involved. Even a very abstract piece of art or something as ambiguous as an instrumental piece of music may invoke extremely similar responses in different admirers, suggesting that some aspects of design can reliably produce certain responses in a viewer or listener. Indeed, this may even occur if the artist is an AI, building a piece entirely without conscious intention.

 

At the most basic level, yes.

[Reality vs Adventure]

Something very interesting related to this topic is what Ubisoft is doing with photo mode pics. Any game they have made with a photo mode you can get prints or have it on mugs, or iPhone at a charge of course. You can do the same thing at Walmart photo department, not sure the cost difference. This I think is the beginning of the direction of game photography. I'm sure features will get better and price efficient to compete with the retail photo departments. As I think on it, there are some pics I wouldn't mind printing out. Is this something that is going to get a copyright stamp eventually? I like that they are treating this as real photography you have taken with a phone or camera. Can you imagine taking a beautiful pic from a game, put it on the wall, and have a guest think it's real? You can say you took the photo lol. I'm personally excited the groundwork is being set to motivate us to use the photo tool more. And more and more game developers are gonna jump into this. 

[Heatman]

On 6/15/2021 at 8:05 AM, Reality vs Adventure said:

Something very interesting related to this topic is what Ubisoft is doing with photo mode pics. Any game they have made with a photo mode you can get prints or have it on mugs, or iPhone at a charge of course. You can do the same thing at Walmart photo department, not sure the cost difference. This I think is the beginning of the direction of game photography. I'm sure features will get better and price efficient to compete with the retail photo departments. As I think on it, there are some pics I wouldn't mind printing out. Is this something that is going to get a copyright stamp eventually? I like that they are treating this as real photography you have taken with a phone or camera. Can you imagine taking a beautiful pic from a game, put it on the wall, and have a guest think it's real? You can say you took the photo lol. I'm personally excited the groundwork is being set to motivate us to use the photo tool more. And more and more game developers are gonna jump into this. 

Seriously, those photos are really well made in such a way you wouldn't know it's from a game. I'm thinking of getting one for my gaming room as a wallpaper.